The Basis of Support for Hugo Chávez: Measuring the Determinants of Presidential Job Approval in Venezuela

Abstract

THE BASIS OF SUPPORT FOR HUGO CHÁVEZ: MEASURING THE DETERMINANTS OF PRESIDENTIAL JOB APPROVAL IN VENEZUELA Orlando J. Pérez Central Michigan University Introduction Since 1999, Venezuela has experienced a dramatic transformation of its political system with the coming to power of Hugo Chávez. Chávez dismantled the previous political system and established neo-populist structures that rely on his personal appeal and the close collaboration of the armed forces. Chávez has relied heavily on significant support from the poor and those who felt economically and politically excluded by the “Punto Fijo” system.1 President Chávez has built an impressive record of electoral victories; winning every electoral contest except one since coming to power in 1999. He continues to receive relatively high levels of support among sectors of Venezuelan society. However, there is evidence of growing discontent with high crime rates, high levels of inflation, and significant corruption in the public administration. Using data from the AmericasBarometer surveys conducted in 2007, 2008 and 2010, this paper seeks to examine the basis of Chávez’s popular support. Populism as the Underlying Principle of the Regime Brian Loveman and Thomas Davies argue that “In the 1960s and 1970s professional military officers in Latin America scanned the panorama of the hemisphere’s history and blamed the ineptitude and corruption of civilian politicians as well as the imported institutions of liberal democracy for the wretched conditions in their region” (Loveman and Davies 1997: 3). This appears to be the same motivation in Venezuela. An alienated population fell under the charm of the charismatic paratrooper who was willing to sacrifice his life for the country in a heroic effort to take over the government and “save” the nation from a corrupt political system. Populism as a political regime has a long history in Latin America. From Juan Domingo Perón in Argentina and Getulio Vargas in Brazil in the 1940s to Evo Morales in Bolivia and Chávez today, leaders from the ideological right and left have employed populist means to gain support and govern their nations. Studies have focused on the mechanisms by which populist leaders acquire and retain popular support. Significant scholarly C 2012 Southeastern Council on Latin American Studies and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 59 The Latin Americanist, June 2013 attention has been given to defining and understanding the factors leading to the emergence of populist regimes (Conniff 1999; de la Torre 2000). Kurt Weyland (2001) argues that populism is “a political strategy through which a personalistic leader seeks or exercises government power based on direct, unmediated uninstitutionalized support from large numbers of mostly unorganized followers.” Additionally, according to Weyland populist leaders seek to dismantle the pre-existing institutional structures in order to subordinate them to the will of the leader. Populism as a political regime is characterized by five factors. First, populism rejects traditional mechanisms of political participation. Populist leaders arise in situations where traditional political parties undergo a crisis of representation by organizing outside, and in opposition to, the traditional political structures. Second, populist are skilled at “mass communication .” Populist leaders use rallies, television, and, more recently, social media to link the leader with the masses. The importance of mass communication is to transcend the traditional media and create unmediated links between the leader and the population. Third, populists build alternative means of social mobilization either through new political parties and social movements or the development of plebiscitarian mechanisms. Repeated referenda are used to validate the leader and his/her policies. These mechanisms have the added advantage that they bypass the institutional checks of a liberal democracy and marginalize the traditional political opposition.2 Fourth, populist tend to wrap themselves in the national flag. They attempt to appropriate national symbols and myths in order to garner support and advance their agenda. Normally such approach also involves the creation of national enemies, foreign and domestic, that are used to rally popular support. The use of national symbols and common enemies are often used as mechanisms to divert attention from domestic problems. Fifth, populist leaders base a significant portion of their legitimacy on charisma and personal appeal. Populist regimes seek to establish an “organic” relationship between the leader...